If we had a German or Spanish style Rail network

dd972

A bit fanciful I know, but think how good it would be, Dublin to Galway in maybe 45 minutes, down to Cork in say, an hour, up to Belfast in an hour.

Would make a huge difference to the country I'd say, it's would be better connected and less Dublin centric.

foggy_lad

dd972 wrote: »

A bit fanciful I know, but think how good it would be, Dublin to Galway in maybe 45 minutes, down to Cork in say, an hour, up to Belfast in an hour.

Would make a huge difference to the country I'd say, it's would be better connected and less Dublin centric.

It would be so expensive to travel on that it would be closed and lifted within a year. Irish distances and the terrain favour bus transport on most routes.

sligotrain

dd972 wrote: »

A bit fanciful I know, but think how good it would be, Dublin to Galway in maybe 45 minutes, down to Cork in say, an hour, up to Belfast in an hour.

Would make a huge difference to the country I'd say, it's would be better connected and less Dublin centric.

A high speed rail network would be fantastic, however if the existing rail network were doubled where single and the existing track were upgraded to 125 mph speeds we could have a massive improvement using the existing ICR sets although the Cork Mk IV sets would need either new locomotives or converted to be mulitiple unit based to allow faster speeds.

Joined up thinking would mean that the rail services genuinely connected with buses to bring efficient connections to areas not served by the rail network as well.

foggy_lad wrote: »

It would be so expensive to travel on that it would be closed and lifted within a year. Irish distances and the terrain favour bus transport on most routes.

That's a political rather than a technical statement.

kc56

ICR sets have a max speed of 100mph

coylemj

There are only two cities in this country (26 counties) of ours with a population greater than 100,000, Wikipedia says there's more than 50 in Spain and 80 in Germany, that's why we don't have the same type of rail network. The network in northern Italy is pretty good as well.

CIE

foggy_lad wrote: »

It would be so expensive to travel on that it would be closed and lifted within a year. Irish distances and the terrain favour bus transport on most routes

How many 125-mph buses does Ireland have?

Distance between Berlin and Hamburg by rail is only 16 miles longer than the rail distance between Dublin and Cork. You saying that purely based on distance, Deutsche Bahn wasted a bundle of money getting the top speed of its fastest trains on that railway up to 143 miles per hour and using tilt trains to get the average speed up to 118 mph?

dd972

The knock on social effects of high speed rail would be interesting, a lot of Dubs would buy out west and commute or Cork folk could come up to Dublin and commute or vice versa.

bk

Hey you never know, you might get your wish if Deutsche Bahn ended up buying part of Irish Rail (unlikely but possible).

However that doesn't mean you would get high speed rail, even if DB ran Irish Rail, you would still end up with more less what we currently have. The reality is that the demographics (only one city with 1 million people and the rest pretty small, rural and very dispersed) and geography (relatively short distances) just don't lend themselves to high speed rail. Hell to be honest, it barely lends itself to any sort of intercity rail at all!!

Realistically the best we can hope for is consistent 100 mph running, with must speed restrictions lifted. Maybe at a stretch if the economy turns around and we have lots of money, then 125 mph running might be possible on the Cork and Belfast routes, but realistically very unlikely.

This is the case if IR or DB were running the show. The only real advantage I think we would see from DB running the show is better integration with bus services and other forms of public transport. DB for instance finance a massive free bike scheme similar to Dublin Bikes in must German cities with the view of connecting people to their final destination to their homes.

CIE

bk wrote: »

Hey you never know, you might get your wish if Deutsche Bahn ended up buying part of Irish Rail (unlikely but possible).

However that doesn't mean you would get high speed rail, even if DB ran Irish Rail, you would still end up with more less what we currently have. The reality is that the demographics (only one city with 1 million people and the rest pretty small, rural and very dispersed) and geography (relatively short distances) just don't lend themselves to high speed rail. Hell to be honest, it barely lends itself to any sort of intercity rail at all!!

Realistically the best we can hope for is consistent 100 mph running, with must speed restrictions lifted. Maybe at a stretch if the economy turns around and we have lots of money, then 125 mph running might be possible on the Cork and Belfast routes, but realistically very unlikely.

This is the case if IR or DB were running the show. The only real advantage I think we would see from DB running the show is better integration with bus services and other forms of public transport. DB for instance finance a massive free bike scheme similar to Dublin Bikes in must German cities with the view of connecting people to their final destination to their homes.

Why is 125 mph on Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast "realistically" unlikely? especially when Ireland should have had that ages ago? Getting out from under the politicians' thumbs might be needed here, because such modernisation as to get at least into the 1970s should have happened the last time(s) the economy was good, no? But instead, what happens? The same game gets played on the public as during the 1960s, and the public somehow gets hypnotised by it again.

(So again, why are so many motorways being built to service such a "dispersed" public?)

Losty Dublin

CIE wrote: »

Why is 125 mph on Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast "realistically" unlikely? especially when Ireland should have had that ages ago? Getting out from under the politicians' thumbs might be needed here, because such modernisation as to get at least into the 1970s should have happened the last time(s) the economy was good, no? But instead, what happens? The same game gets played on the public as during the 1960s, and the public somehow gets hypnotised by it again.

(So again, why are so many motorways being built to service such a "dispersed" public?)

It's unlikely based upon the cost to gain ratios of both lines, Belfast especially.

The current and best value plan is to upgrade the current infrastructure to cope with as high a speed as is possible with the current trains; this is what has been done over the last few years with Dublin-Cork. On paper, an all out non stop Dublin-Cork can be done in a little over 2 hours; any faster will require faster trains and some realignment work to make decent savings.

In the case of Dublin-Belfast, the natural route of the line is of more curvy route with some very severe climbs; this makes it less able for high speeds on it's route. There are also a few bridges which slow down traffic; the Boyne bridge especially. To knock off substantial time off trips is made harder by these problems and the capital outlay required to eliminate them.

AlekSmart

CIE wrote: »

(So again, why are so many motorways being built to service such a "dispersed" public?)

ER...Ah....Hmmmm....One for the experts I reckon.....


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/further-blow-for-motorists-as-tolls-to-increase-by-10c-3323182.html

The NRA said that tolls were being increased on the M50 to help meet the cost of buying out the private company that owned the road until 2008.

National Toll Roads would be paid €50m a year until 2020, and the payments were linked to inflation, the spokesman said.

"We have to pay back the debt to NTR based on the consumer price index. As the inflationary value increases, we have to keep stationary with that.

"If we didn't increase the tolls, the taxpayer would be out of pocket."

He added that tolls in the Dublin Port Tunnel were not increased because it was a special case and not commonly used by private motorists.

The increased tolls on the M3 and Limerick Tunnel come despite the State already paying the operators more than €6m a year because traffic volumes are lower than expected.

The annual "traffic guarantee payments" will be paid to the M3 contractor until 2025, and until 2041 in the case of the Limerick Tunnel. Total payments could reach €142m.

I'd just love to have been a Fly-on-the-Wall when those "contracts" were being negotiated...;)

If the same Team had been involved in Irish Rail's deliberations,we'd have direct hi-speed bullet trains between Dublin and Berlin by now......:rolleyes:

"Mr Noel Dempsey,to the nearest red telephone Please....:p "

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

It would be so expensive to travel on

20 minutes to galway? most would gladly pay for that

foggy_lad wrote: »

it would be closed and lifted within a year.

with irish rail management in charge probably.

foggy_lad wrote: »

Irish distances and the terrain favour rickity old bus transport that travels at stone age speeds on most routes.

car is better, you can go where you want and faster then the rickity old things they call busses, or take the train.

LivelineDipso

dd972 wrote: »

Would make a huge difference to the country I'd say, it's would be better connected and less Dublin centric.

What's wrong with the country being Dublincentric?

On a small island of 5 million people this country is very fortunate to have a one of the world's top 30 cities.

Being Dublincentric is the only lifesaver we have left.

dowlingm

The other thing to remember is that Germany and Spain have significant rail industries that can be substantially sustained by domestic demand (though in the latter case that is slackening). Having tens of thousands of jobs building railcars and signalling systems and whatnot is a big incentive for government to invest. By contrast the SIMI gets the best hearing at Leinster House.

FridaysWell

As a matter of interest, why doesn't the government seek to sell/tender CIE off to DB or the French? And follow a model where one company runs the regional and intercity trains and national bus services, with other entities or transport companies running the show in large metropolitan areas, like Dublin Transport and Cork, Galway etc.

A really efficient service can be run on our little island, given the right management and a bit of a push. There could be potential for money to be made, provided Joe Public is enticed into using the trains and public transport.

AlekSmart

dowlingm wrote: »

The other thing to remember is that Germany and Spain have significant rail industries that can be substantially sustained by domestic demand (though in the latter case that is slackening). Having tens of thousands of jobs building railcars and signalling systems and whatnot is a big incentive for government to invest. By contrast the SIMI gets the best hearing at Leinster House.

Good golfers though,I believe,although I understand it's a right pain in the Ass to fit a set of clubs into the boot of a hybrid Lexus saloon.......;)

foggy_lad

CIE wrote: »

How many 125-mph buses does Ireland have?

Distance between Berlin and Hamburg by rail is only 16 miles longer than the rail distance between Dublin and Cork. You saying that purely based on distance, Deutsche Bahn wasted a bundle of money getting the top speed of its fastest trains on that railway up to 143 miles per hour and using tilt trains to get the average speed up to 118 mph?

How many cities in Ireland can be compared to Berlin and Hamburg?

Pipe dreams are best kept for when wrapped up in front of a warm fire.

LivelineDipso

foggy_lad wrote: »

How many cities in Ireland can be compared to Berlin and Hamburg?

Just the one: Dublin.

All the others were held back by something called "regional development", "civil service decentralisation", and "spatial strategies" which kept Cork, Galway, Waterford, Sligo, Clonmel and Limerick pointless towns while TDs, GAA Officials and Priests demanded one-off houses and ghostestates fill the rural landscape.

Can't blame the "Dublin Government" for that. Nope.

foggy_lad

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Just the one: Dublin.

All the others were held back by something called "regional development", "civil service decentralisation", and "spatial strategies" which kept Cork, Galway, Waterford, Sligo, Clonmel and Limerick pointless towns while TDs, GAA Officials and Priests demanded one-off houses and ghostestates fill the rural landscape.

Can't blame the "Dublin Government" for that. Nope.

So we should all pay now for high speed trains which go nowhere and will carry nobody?

LivelineDipso

foggy_lad wrote: »

So we should all pay now for high speed trains which go nowhere and will carry nobody?

A new (standard guage) high-speed line between Dublin (hueston via dual gauge interconnector) and Belfast via Dublin Airport and Navan would be a fantastic success. Railfreight too.

But this being Ireland so a priest-ridden nutjob in Mayo would object.

No chance. Ireland is not Spain/Portugal.

Victor

dd972 wrote: »

The knock on social effects of high speed rail would be interesting, a lot of Dubs would buy out west and commute or Cork folk could come up to Dublin and commute or vice versa.

It would cost €50-100 a day to commute.

Cookie_Monster

foggy_lad wrote: »

So we should all pay now for high speed trains which go nowhere and will carry nobody?

they carry plenty but it'll all be the welfare brigade joy riding round the country as the average commuter wouldn't be able to afford the fares.

corktina

well forget Spain, if recent news stories are recalled and as for Germany, how the heck can you hope to have a German style railway with out German style passenger potential?

The fact is we already have a railway we can barely afford, whats needed to impriove it is effective management

CIE

corktina wrote: »

well forget Spain, if recent news stories are recalled and as for Germany, how the heck can you hope to have a German style railway with out German style passenger potential?

The fact is we already have a railway we can barely afford, whats needed to impriove it is effective management

Agreed about the need for effective management, but "barely afford" given its volume is specious.

It's worth a reminder that even Spain's AVE network has experienced its first closure of lines. The high-speed line linking Toledo with Albacente and Cuenca closed in July of last year; only nine people per day were using it on average.

sligotrain

corktina wrote: »

well forget Spain, if recent news stories are recalled and as for Germany, how the heck can you hope to have a German style railway with out German style passenger potential?

The fact is we already have a railway we can barely afford, whats needed to impriove it is effective management

We can barely afford Motorways - shall we close them?

corktina

sligotrain wrote: »

We can barely afford Motorways - shall we close them?

i didn't suggest closing railways, i suggested making them more afordable with more effective management.

foggy_lad

sligotrain wrote: »

We can barely afford Motorways - shall we close them?

at least people use the motorways, unlike the trains.

sligotrain

Maybe people don't use trains because there aren't enough of them and they aren't allowed to go as fast as they should - and don't serve much of the geographic area of this island.

corktina

sligotrain wrote: »

Maybe people don't use trains because there aren't enough of them and they aren't allowed to go as fast as they should - and don't serve much of the geographic area of this island.

or to put it another way....road transport is more convenient,quicker, cheaper and goes just about everywhere...

dowlingm

FridaysWell wrote: »

As a matter of interest, why doesn't the government seek to sell/tender CIE off to DB or the French?

Because DB and SNCF aren't charities? They will take a hard look at the network and say "here are our contract clauses specifying minimum payments. You won't have much problem with them given the money you're shovelling out to the toll road companies".

The Veolia/RPA contract works because they got in on the ground floor - no defined benefit schemes from days when CIE was 10 times larger in headcount to pay for.

sligotrain

corktina wrote: »

or to put it another way....road transport is more convenient,quicker, cheaper and goes just about everywhere...

There's room for both road and rail solutions to our transport requirements in the State. Road has the advantage of universal coverage - though not to uniform quality - but is road cheaper? We don't ever discuss here how much it cost to build motorways here or what subventions the State paid to private companies to run toll services. We never discuss what sweeteners were paid to landowners when the motorways were built either. The true cost of your beloved roads is never up for debate.

Instead we always boil every argument here down to Reductio ad absurdum levels. Motorways Good. Rail Bad. Rail so bad let's turn them into footpaths. It's really pointless trying to have a debate on here.

corktina

sligotrain wrote: »

There's room for both road and rail solutions to our transport requirements in the State. Road has the advantage of universal coverage - though not to uniform quality - but is road cheaper? We don't ever discuss here how much it cost to build motorways here or what subventions the State paid to private companies to run toll services. We never discuss what sweeteners were paid to landowners when the motorways were built either. The true cost of your beloved roads is never up for debate.

Instead we always boil every argument here down to Reductio ad absurdum levels. Motorways Good. Rail Bad. Rail so bad let's turn them into footpaths. It's really pointless trying to have a debate on here.

well YOU started it! lol.

Divide the cost of roads by the number of users and it seems a no brainer to me.

bk

But any argument of road versus rail is pure fantasy. There isn't a single country in the world that uses rail instead of roads.

Today, you always build decent roads first and then only if the roads arent enough to handle the traffic and/or you have long distances between large, highly populated cities do you build rail lines.

The truth is that the only reason we have intercity rail in Ireland is because it was built in Victorian times before the automobile was developed and more importantly became widely available.

If you were to build a new country the same size as Ireland tomorrow and with the same geography an demographics, then you would probably not even build intercity rail lines, just roads.

Btw I do agree that the motorways were overspeced and that there were probably back handlers involved. However even if there weren't and you looked at it in a purely logical analysis of our demographics and geography, then we would still have built motorways first.

dowlingm

That Ireland has moved from road to rail is fair to a point but as I noted on the T&RS photo thread how different might transport in Ireland look if the railspur from Longpavement into Ardnacrusha had had catenary strung and that was extended through the network as part of rural electrification - maybe certain points of history like wartime or the 1970s oil crisis might have been easier to bear with Ireland able to meet more of its transport needs outside of imported and expensive oil. Now costs of all sorts of capital works have exploded and the necessity for them so much less.

monument

bk wrote: »

But any argument of road versus rail is pure fantasy. There isn't a single country in the world that uses rail instead of roads.

+1.

bk wrote: »

Today, you always build decent roads first and then only if the roads arent enough to handle the traffic and/or you have long distances between large, highly populated cities do you build rail lines.

That's not universally true.

But, even if it was, does that make it right?

bk wrote: »

The truth is that the only reason we have intercity rail in Ireland is because it was built in Victorian times before the automobile was developed and more importantly became widely available.

And the only reason we have the car is because of the bicycle.

bk wrote: »

If you were to build a new country the same size as Ireland tomorrow and with the same geography an demographics, then you would probably not even build intercity rail lines, just roads.

If you were to build a new country the same size as Ireland tomorrow and with the same geography an demographics, you'd be ****ing insane. Certifiably.

Evening you go with the car as the only mode of transport, our population spread is the best idea.

bk wrote: »

Btw I do agree that the motorways were overspeced and that there were probably back handlers involved. However even if there weren't and you looked at it in a purely logical analysis of our demographics and geography, then we would still have built motorways first.

Look back to when exactly?

You're putting across the idea that the more disperse commuting and housing patterns happened before the road building, while the fact it it happened as a result of road building / planned road building.

corktina wrote: »

well YOU started it! lol.

Divide the cost of roads by the number of users and it seems a no brainer to me.

All of the real costs or the limited costs the NRA etc put on the balance sheet.

The Idyl Race

dowlingm wrote: »

The other thing to remember is that Germany and Spain have significant rail industries that can be substantially sustained by domestic demand (though in the latter case that is slackening). Having tens of thousands of jobs building railcars and signalling systems and whatnot is a big incentive for government to invest. By contrast the SIMI gets the best hearing at Leinster House.

Because our pols are a bunch of used car salesmen at heart? Let's also say nothing about how red lines on maps can be shifted to become motorways that magically pass through certain landowners property. Oh I did.

CIE

bk wrote: »

But any argument of road versus rail is pure fantasy. There isn't a single country in the world that uses rail instead of roads.

Today, you always build decent roads first and then only if the roads arent enough to handle the traffic and/or you have long distances between large, highly populated cities do you build rail lines.

The truth is that the only reason we have intercity rail in Ireland is because it was built in Victorian times before the automobile was developed and more importantly became widely available.

If you were to build a new country the same size as Ireland tomorrow and with the same geography an demographics, then you would probably not even build intercity rail lines, just roads.

Btw I do agree that the motorways were overspeced and that there were probably back handlers involved. However even if there weren't and you looked at it in a purely logical analysis of our demographics and geography, then we would still have built motorways first

And what countries without rail and with motorways are you going to cite examples of, that are not utterly balkanised? What countries with vibrant middle classes are like the ones you are describing in that rhetorical outline? There has to be at least one...(right?)

In spite of alleged "demographics", we still have traffic jams in all of our major cities and towns, yes? You cannot build your way out of those with roads any more than you can totally eschew road for rail (which was never the intent of railways anyway, and certainly was not the intent of tramways which preceded dedicated railways).

monument wrote: »

And the only reason we have the car is because of the bicycle

Not the horse and cart? The first automobiles were not motorised carriages and buggies? and the first motor buses were not essentially motorised versions of horse-drawn omnibuses and stagecoaches?

I'm not trying to be pedantic on the point, but IINM, the first motorcar proper preceded the motorbike by a few years.

foggy_lad wrote: »

at least people use the motorways

People will use anything that is nominally "free". Wait until easy credit collapses and cars are not so affordable; then you're going to see empty motorways.

(Oh; did you just admit that the population of Ireland is sufficient to warrant motorways? Then it's more than enough for railways too.)

CIE

sligotrain wrote: »

There's room for both road and rail solutions to our transport requirements in the State. Road has the advantage of universal coverage - though not to uniform quality - but is road cheaper? We don't ever discuss here how much it cost to build motorways here or what subventions the State paid to private companies to run toll services. We never discuss what sweeteners were paid to landowners when the motorways were built either. The true cost of your beloved roads is never up for debate.

Instead we always boil every argument here down to Reductio ad absurdum levels. Motorways Good. Rail Bad. Rail so bad let's turn them into footpaths. It's really pointless trying to have a debate on here.

Road is not cheaper. It cost nine times as much per mile to build the M18 as to restore the parallel railway. Of course, the state transportation company, in a fit of conflict of interest, runs express buses on the motorway but does not run express trains on the railway; if the market warrants express buses, then why not express trains too? (If I were the owner of the railway, if I had to face competition from express buses, you can bet I would run express trains to compete.)

The state transportation company is great at distorting railway costs as well. The costs to restore the railway to Midleton in County Cork were at least five times higher than they ought have been.

foggy_lad

CIE wrote: »

People will use anything that is nominally "free". Wait until easy credit collapses and cars are not so affordable; then you're going to see empty motorways.

(Oh; did you just admit that the population of Ireland is sufficient to warrant motorways? Then it's more than enough for railways too.)

Way back before all the motorways in Ireland there were less cars and there were still more people using their cars and buses than used the railways. now the roads are 100 times better and the railway is stuck in the last century and trying to go further back in time by reopening lines that closed years ago because of not having passengers, yet the same lines have even less passengers in their catchment areas now.

There may be enough passengers for some lines but to make those lines attractive for most people would require such spending that would drive the fares beyond the reach of all except the wealthy and privileged who are on expenses and who frequent 1st class.

corktina

CIE wrote: »

Road is not cheaper. It cost nine times as much per mile to build the M18 as to restore the parallel railway. Of course, the state transportation company, in a fit of conflict of interest, runs express buses on the motorway but does not run express trains on the railway; if the market warrants express buses, then why not express trains too? (If I were the owner of the railway, if I had to face competition from express buses, you can bet I would run express trains to compete.)

The state transportation company is great at distorting railway costs as well. The costs to restore the railway to Midleton in County Cork were at least five times higher than they ought have been.

a road costs 9 times to build what a railway does eh? well, I'd hazard a guess that roads carry many many times 9 more traffic than rail does.

You cannot run express trains on a line not built to take express trains. We have no money to be rebuilding lines to take faster trains JUST AS we have no money to build more motorways.

It's also a fact that rail does not reach even one percent of the places road does AND NEVER DID even in the pre 1900 era. Roads then were not a competitor but come the advent of the motor vehicle and tarred roads, the writing was firmly on the wall for rail, just as rail earlier eclipsed the Canals.

Rail has it's place in Ireland chiefly on Commuter services (which with our short distances even Cork to Dublin isn't a mile off being) but for most journeys, road is more efficient.

bk

monument wrote: »

If you were to build a new country the same size as Ireland tomorrow and with the same geography an demographics, you'd be ****ing insane. Certifiably.

Totally agree

monument wrote: »

You're putting across the idea that the more disperse commuting and housing patterns happened before the road building, while the fact it it happened as a result of road building / planned road building.

That isn't true, Ireland has always had a highly rural and dispersed population, well before the introduction of the car. It was just that people tended to live and work on their farms and seldom went further then their nearest village/town.

They would get there by walking mostly or horse and cart.

You then had the introduction of Victorian railways, which left these people on horse and cart get to Dublin once a year.

Unfortunately the industrial revolution past us by and we never had the massive switch from rural living to city living that happened in most other European cities.

Instead with the introduction of the automobile, the horse and cart tracks were simply paved over and our road network was superimposed over our rural countryside.

Ironically the new Motorway network is actually the first significant step towards reversing this trend. No more one off houses built along the roads like on the national roads, which are under the control of control of corrupt local politicians. Instead the NRA have total control over the motorways and the planning of on and off ramps. Motorways which now bypass these sleepy little towns and villages, with much less frequent off ramps that encourage people to live more densely at the end of these off ramps.

CIE wrote:

In spite of alleged "demographics", we still have traffic jams in all of our major cities and towns, yes?

Please note I'm only talking about intercity rail, obviously DART, LUAS and Commuter rail are badly needed in Dublin or any other large city. Rail based mass transit is absolutely needed in any large, densely populated city. Unfortunately we pretty much have only one city like this.

BTW to be honest traffic really isn't too bad in Cork, it can get a little busy at certain points during rush hour, but for the most part it is fast and free running, you are rarely delayed more then a few minutes, nothing like Dublin. That is why unfortunately so many people drive in Cork, rather then cycle or take the bus. Don't know about Limerick and Galway.

CIE wrote:

People will use anything that is nominally "free". Wait until easy credit collapses and cars are not so affordable; then you're going to see empty motorways.

And if that happens, then do you think they are going to switch to very expensive trains instead?

Not a chance, they will switch to much cheaper bus coaches or not travel at all or emigrate.

Or more likely people just won't buy a new car as often, instead keeping their existing car longer and milking more value out of it.

Modern rail thrives when an economy is doing good (see Germany, US, Switzerland) and tends to suffer and is the first to get the bullet when the economy is doing bad.

monument

bk wrote: »

That isn't true, Ireland has always had a highly rural and dispersed population, well before the introduction of the car. It was just that people tended to live and work on their farms and seldom went further then their nearest village/town.

They would get there by walking mostly or horse and cart.

You then had the introduction of Victorian railways, which left these people on horse and cart get to Dublin once a year.

A dispersed population which walks to work isn't the same as one which drives 10km or 30km or more.

But it is worth nothing that we have for some time now a trend towards town and city living, even if the boom years saw a dilution of this.

bk wrote: »

Unfortunately the industrial revolution past us by and we never had the massive switch from rural living to city living that happened in most other European cities.

Instead with the introduction of the automobile, the horse and cart tracks were simply paved over and our road network was superimposed over our rural countryside.

Interisting, in the UK the paving largely started because of the powers of cyclists, not sure about here.

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

bk wrote: »

Ironically the new Motorway network is actually the first significant step towards reversing this trend. No more one off houses built along the roads like on the national roads, which are under the control of control of corrupt local politicians. Instead the NRA have total control over the motorways and the planning of on and off ramps. Motorways which now bypass these sleepy little towns and villages, with much less frequent off ramps that encourage people to live more densely at the end of these off ramps.

The NRA can be commended. Sadly you need more than just limited ramps to get people to live densely near the ramps, and limit the spill beyond that. It's beyond their remit and nobody cares.

Rail in Ireland has the same problem but like its costs, the problem is more apprent and "on the balance sheet".

dowlingm

CIE wrote: »

The state transportation company is great at distorting railway costs as well. The costs to restore the railway to Midleton in County Cork were at least five times higher than they ought have been.

You know, I want to believe that, but doing Ennis-Athenry on the cheap didn't do anyone any favours. Mind you, I would like to know who paid the additional costs involved with the riverbank collapse during the overbridge construction on the Lower Glanmire Road, not to mention who okayed that the signalling reworking at Cobh Jct would not be completed until after reopening..

dowlingm

If the NRA was placed in charge of railways in additional to motorways, with CIE merely an operating company, then modes would be on an equal footing and new railways and motorways could be subjected to proper alternatives analysis. We might even see shocking innovations like rail and road sharing a route corridor!

bk

dowlingm wrote: »

We might even see shocking innovations like rail and road sharing a route corridor!

Yup, can't understand why they didn't at least leave a rail alignment along the new motorways, as I believe they did in Israel.

Aard

Politics aside, Israel is incredible when it comes to infrastructure. They went from having relatively few travel by rail back in the 60s, to having over 30m travel annually by rail. Not bad for a country with a population of 8m. The key was in their version of the interconnector, where indeed they did run it along the median of a motorway. They're also building a high-speed line from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem about 60 km long. Very impressive.

Run_to_da_hills

I had a bad experience with RENFE.

Waiting for the last train into Barcelona from the southern suburb of Sitches (Equivalent of Bray to Dublin CC) Train was cancelled without reason, no alternative bus, no offer compensation, or word of apology, ended up having to fork out on a shared Taxi.

CIE

dowlingm wrote: »

You know, I want to believe that, but doing Ennis-Athenry on the cheap didn't do anyone any favours. Mind you, I would like to know who paid the additional costs involved with the riverbank collapse during the overbridge construction on the Lower Glanmire Road, not to mention who okayed that the signalling reworking at Cobh Jct would not be completed until after reopening..

Depends on what you mean by "on the cheap". The costs did not build a slow railway, did it? I see CWR and concrete sleepers there. They only run the trains slow there, but physically they could go a great deal faster.

dowlingm wrote: »

If the NRA was placed in charge of railways in additional to motorways, with CIE merely an operating company, then modes would be on an equal footing and new railways and motorways could be subjected to proper alternatives analysis. We might even see shocking innovations like rail and road sharing a route corridor

There are plenty of countries where the road and rail agencies are different and yet road and rail share the same corridor. Germany is one, where the NBS (high-speed rail alignment or Neubaustrecken) are built alongside the Autobahn. There are a few examples in the USA as well (Chicago's Blue Line to O'Hare Airport, New Mexico RailRunner in the middle of Interstate 20, Los Angeles' Metrolink in the middle of Interstate 10 en route to San Bernardino).

That said, most of Ireland's intercity railways are rather straight. A number of the rural stations could do with being bypassed though...and if you put the NRA in charge of building railways, you'll merely see more roads.

corktina

CIE wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by "on the cheap". The costs did not build a slow railway, did it? I see CWR and concrete sleepers there. They only run the trains slow there, but physically they could go a great deal faster.T

Are you alleging that IE are deliberately running the trains slower than they might on that line? :eek:

LivelineDipso

Israel is miles ahead of Ireland in terms of rail. The news high speed line is proof they plan ahead.

Losty Dublin

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Israel is miles ahead of Ireland in terms of rail. The news high speed line is proof they plan ahead.

They also have around 5 times the population density of us to justify it as well.

Population of Israel, 8 million. Area of about 20,000 KM

Population of the island of Ireland, 6 million. Area of about 75,000 KM.